home

McCain's Tightrope

John McCain has locked up the Republican nomination, but he may not have locked up Republican votes in the general election. Will he need to move farther to the right to keep the Republican voting coalition intact?

The size of the evangelical community ensures its voice must be listened to. In the post room of Focus on the Family, dozens of workers sift through the mail, which can be as much as 150,000 items a day. Such power and influence mean evangelicals are a voting bloc McCain cannot write off. His campaign is bombarding 600 nationwide leaders with regular emails and appeals for help. Plans have been drawn up to mobilise the evangelical vote in 18 vital states. His top staff, like senior aide Charlie Black, have regular meetings with evangelical leaders. It might work. McCain's record on the key issue for many conservative evangelicals - abortion - is solidly hostile. 'The evangelical community will come around in the end,' said Steve Mitchell, a political pollster and chairman of Mitchell Research. 'Some leaders have not endorsed him yet because they are just tough negotiators. They are playing politics.'

[more ...]

McCain's problems still leave him walking a tightrope. He needs evangelical voters, but also needs to retain his appeal to the more moderate middle ground. McCain was recently forced to renounce the endorsements of two religious leaders because of their past extremist statements on Islam and Jews.

McCain may find that his balancing act between the Republican base and the middle ground becomes impossible. Take two Colorado City women: Susan Henderson and Cindy Smith. Both were Bush voters in 2004. Both distrust McCain. 'I am pro-choice and he's not,' said Henderson. Smith said: 'I'm the conservative type. McCain is a bit too much for the other side.' Neither would say she would definitely vote for McCain in November. Nor would they reject Obama outright.

< Complaints Against Chicago Police Are No Surprise | The 2008 'Fear Iran' World Tour >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Once the far-right 527s get through (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    with Obama, repubs will vote for mccain in droves. Not even close. The election will be framed as an all American war hero vs. an anti- american terrorist coddler. Or worse. This election may be closer than I once thought, but I see no way Obama pulls it out.

    527s (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Rekwin08 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    Once the 527s get done, the voter will be so disgusted Obama will win in a landslide. They have nothing but BS and hate to sling and it will not wash.  McCain will be so tied to Bush and the far-right wacko wing of the Republican Party (the only wing it has left)there will be no standing up.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish I had your confidence (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    that the average voter has gotten so much more discerning since 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    Or 2000, 1988 and 1984 (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    When has the right-wing attack ad strategy ever not worked?

    Oh yeah, when Bill Clinton was elected.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't let that pesky fact (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST
    get back to the DNC...The Clintons don't lose elections against the Republicans.  Just to Democrats who stack the deck against her and a complicit media.

    Me? Bitter?  you bet!  Am I going to exercise my bitterness in November?

    You. Bet.

    [ Parent ]

    Its not worked... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    so far this year in most any election.  Sorry to disappoint you but things have changed.

    [ Parent ]
    We haven't seen any Republican attack ads (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:47 AM EST
    yet.  I still remember the Willie Horton ads from 20 years ago.

    There are a large number of points on which the ads almost write themselves.  Is there any film from Ayers time in the Weather Underground?  There's already footage of Pfleger and Wright.  That vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill will not play well as prices go over $5 a gallon.  And those are just the issues that the Republicans will hardly have to exaggerate in.

    [ Parent ]

    The attack ads we have seen... (1.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:43:23 AM EST
    include the 'evil liberal' wing of Obama, wright and all that noise, used to include whatever democrat candidate was running.  They desperately tried to link Obama/wright to everyone... and its failed most every time.  

    Again, things have changed.

    [ Parent ]

    In the (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:22:05 AM EST
    races you are talking about the candidates threw Obama under the bus and ran over him. So I don't think that it shows anything other than you can disassociate yourself successfully from Obama and win.

    [ Parent ]
    The real point is that... (1.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    the 'liberal is evil' shtick isnt working anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Confidence (none / 0) (#164)
    by Rekwin08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:23:44 PM EST
    My confidence isn't that great either after 2004 but I felt I had to respond to this nonsense. Besides, in 2004 you had a sitting president in a time of war (actually an occupation but whatever)and a very unattractive candidate (Kerry) who didn't seem like he really wanted the job. Plus, we have had four years of disastrous mismanagement of everything from a war to the economy (Think Katrina) and people are sick of the useless name calling and bickering. The Republicans had there chance and they screwed up. This is not 2004--things have changed.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh??? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    They have nothing but BS and hate to sling and it will not wash.

    it is pure wishful thinking that "it will not wash". ALL recent history says just the opposite, that voters are highly, highly susceptible to BS, hate, lies, and smears.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by daryl herbert on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:28:45 PM EST
    They have nothing but BS and hate to sling and it will not wash

    Really?  Because back before Sen. Obama clinched the nomination, I got the impression that he had some serious weak points, and that Sen. Clinton was the stronger candidate.

    He's got people from his past who didn't match his "hope & change" rhetoric, a record devoid of bipartisanship (again failing to match "hope & change"), unpopular past positions (his handwriting on a document advocating a total handgun ban), making verbal gaffes every time he speaks without a teleprompter, afraid to debate McCain, constantly ditching campaign advisers (calling them "volunteers" whenever he wants to cut ties), flip-flopping on important issues like Rev. Wright, NAFTA, and meeting with Iranian leadership . . . and did I mention he has no foreign policy experience and no executive experience?

    Or does that all count as BS and hate?

    [ Parent ]

    I think this is a naive assumption (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33:19 PM EST
    Negative campaigning works.  It always has.  And I believe this will be a manifestly negative campaign.  Obama's background begs for a negative campaign.  He's got a double whammy of inexperience and radical and corrupt associates.  That's not a good combination.  Throw in that he's black and his persona matches up well with the loser Dem stereotype of the effete, elitist liberal, and well that is a toxic brew waiting to be served by 527's.

    Obama may win, but I guarantee you it will be in spite of who he is and not because of it.  The only thing that can push Obama over the top is that this is overwhelmingly a Dem cycle.  He's not going to win on his own merits.  Those are going to be easily outweighed by his negatives by November.  He can only hope to win on the demerits of the Bush legacy.

    The GE is going to be a game of chicken between disgusted and dissatisfied (with their own candidates) R and D voters, with the deciding factor being who the indies hate more by the end of this process and feel they have to vote against.  I'm not optimistic about Obama's chances of being viewed as the lesser of the two evils.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's your choices: (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    (two party anyway):

    A 1/2 term senator with REALLY questionable associations and a shifty background with NO military experience

    VS.

    an experienced member of Congress from a fairly conservative state that was a POW.

    Here's the line that is being served up:  "John McCain was chained and listened to anti-American propoganda for 5 years and paid a dear price.  Barack Obama listened to anti-American propoganda for 20 yrs and paid for the privilege."

    Get back to me on Wed Nov 5th which is going to work in places like KY, WY, ID, UT, MO, OH, PA....

    [ Parent ]

    I can't see any earthly reason to (none / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
    wait til Nov. 5th to answer your question.
    Am I missing something?!

    [ Parent ]
    Some people (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
    are going to have to have the hard truth hit them in the face because change and hope is all they have right now.

    presidentelect.org gives enough history about the Electoral College for the "creative class" to discern that BHO has a snowball's chance in hell to win certain states they are touting he will carry.

    [ Parent ]

    Check back here in November (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    and we'll see how your prediction holds up.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (2.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:13:17 PM EST
    Obama will be well over 300 electoral votes. I could be a landslide.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:15:33 AM EST
    it's Kool Aide time.

    For Obama to get ANYWHERE NEAR that number he would ABSOLUTELY have to take WV, KY and TN....

    which AIN'T gunna happen.

    try again.

    [ Parent ]

    Some of the crap he's getting from his (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    right is about the right preparing for defeat.

    They will simply claim that Mccain was not a proper conservative. That's really all they are panicing about.  The conservaiteves know they buggered up and they have to have MCcain as their scapegoat for failing in 2008.

    [ Parent ]

    gee that is interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    all these folks are thinking, i'd better say this and that now so when mccain loses, i can explain it.  you know most people don't think like that. no how, no way, no time. they think this person suits me or they don't. their pocketbook, their health care plan, their childrens' futures matter to them and not politican spin. most of us are sick of it.


    [ Parent ]
    For Republicans I think the (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    feeling is it's all about how many people they can get out to vote.

    I doubt they have any fear they can turn people in swing states against Obama.  It's about motivating them to go to the polls.

    But while they're not involved in the same pre-blame-game the Dems are with Hillary and her supporters, they are (again, from what I can tell) much more sanguine about a McCain loss.

    They think Obama will be a 2nd Jimmy Carter, and they can use the next 4 years to get the party back on track and take the WH back in 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    i can't say for sure what they think (none / 0) (#80)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:55:25 PM EST
    about mccain, but i think they plan on his winning. i know for sure they are counting on the democrats to help them win can substantial numbers if not control in the mid terms. i have mentioned before and will again, the president is just part of this. congress has lower approval ratings than bush. why is that? we need to hold their feet to the fire. just look at how pelosi for example behaves and speaks.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not saying that is what they are (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:06:41 PM EST
    planning.  It's just that they don't seem as do-or-die as the Dems that it has to be now, this very minute.  And they don't seem to be wailing ahead of time about what a loss it would be if their candidate didn't win the WH.


    [ Parent ]
    the repubs are crafty folks. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:22:59 PM EST
    they are more disciplined than democrats. look at the votes in congress this past year. their calculation just might be to let the democrats do it to themselves. sad to say there is some merit to that.

    [ Parent ]
    I've heard this phrase alot. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:56:35 PM EST
    "let Obama in for one trmand then run a real conservative"

    It's similar to our problem with Nader in 2000.  Let Bush in for one term and then get a real liberal to run.  

    Of course we don't even have a real liberal running in 2008 yet--funny thing is though although Obama is a centrist lightwieght he's easily portrayed as a boutique socialist radical.

    [ Parent ]

    all things to all people or so i have read! (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The evangelical community is really popular this (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    election cycle with both McCain and Obama vying for their votes.  How much farther right will Obama go in order to garner their votes?  Seems that Obama has chosen to join McCain in the balancing act arena?

    Yet again... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    Is it just me, or is there something a little bit strange with this whole pandering to the evangelical community...yet again?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    is bothers me immensely. Obama supporters have adopted the Bush rhetoric about any criticism of evangelicals being "anti christian". I simply am astounded at this garbage. It just goes to show in many ways that no matter who wins the election, the evangelicals ONCE AGAIN will be running the country. They've done such a great job for the last 8 years why wouldn't we want them to continue?/snark

    [ Parent ]
    Not Just You (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    Although it is no surprise to me that Obama is pandering to the evangelical community. In some ways, Obama is really about change. He is definitely changing the values of the Democratic Party to be more in line with Republicans. It is not a change that I've have been looking for and that is why I'm now an Independent.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama goes for the (none / 0) (#153)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:55:53 AM EST
    evangelical pro-life voter, then McCain can go for the Clinton pro-choice voter --

    And Republicans and Democrats can switch positions AGAIN!!  Just like they did during the Civil Rights era!!  

    Whoop!! Whoop!!  Aren't Politics fun??!!  

    [ Parent ]

    I would be happy (none / 0) (#155)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:33 AM EST
    with a fiscally conservative/socially moderate/liberal party actually.

    [ Parent ]
    Pandering is in the eye of the beholder (2.00 / 0) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    Pandering is one of those funny words that is totally dependent on which side of the fence you sit.

    Reaching out is when they try and get the vote of your particular group...Pandering is when they try and get the vote of a group you don't belong to...Honesty is when you don't reach out at all in a quest for bi-partisanship by treating everyone the same, and no one votes for you.

    [ Parent ]

    news flash, obama isn't an (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:06:59 PM EST
    evangelical. he has been a member of a church that has a black liberation theology for 20 years or so.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah we know that. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    it's a syncretic Southside religious millieu That contains Pleiger Wright and Farrakhan.

    We do know it's going to cost votes in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Do You Have A Problem (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    With black liberation?

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot to finish your thought (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:35:06 PM EST
    theology belonged in there.

    black liberation is different than black liberation theology.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (3.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    Why because it involves the church? Seems to me, whether you like it or not the point of it is black liberation ala MLK.

    Anthony Pinn of Rice University acknowledges that black liberation preaching often sounds angry. But he says the anger does not advocate violence but is instead channeled into constructive routes. Trinity UCC, he notes, has 70 ministries that help the poor, the unemployed, those with AIDS or those in prison. Pinn says the words can be jarring to the untrained ear, but they're still valid.

    [snip]

    Black liberation preaching can be a loud, passionate, physical affair. Linda Thomas, who teaches at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, says the whole point of it is to challenge the powerful and to raise questions for society to think about. Thomas says if white people are surprised by the rhetoric, it's because most have never visited a black church.

    [snip]

    "These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love," Obama said.

    He denounced the harshness of Wright's words -- not because they were false, he said, but because they did not acknowledge the strides that the U.S. has made in the fight against racism. Obama said his own candidacy shows how far the country has come.

    NPR

    [ Parent ]

    recall when Russert asked Obama about Farrakhan? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:00:46 AM EST
    That wasn't a casual passing comment on Russert's part.  I didn't really catch what was going on when Timmeh asked him that Question.  Obama didn't even catch the significance because he didn't realize that the religious millieu up there was an aberation.  Clinton realized what Russert was up to though.  The oddball religous structure there is going to develop into a major theme in October.

    It Doesn't matter what I think on the subject really.

    [ Parent ]

    I See (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
    It Doesn't matter what I think on the subject really.

    You are just concerned?

    I never have listened to Russert, he seemed like a hack from what I have read, though. And I am not sure what you are getting at. If it is that Obama is unelectable because he is black, and attended a black church, I disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    no not concerned (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:02:11 AM EST
    It's almost laughable that this was overlooked.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a problem with slanted (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:35:49 PM EST
    questions?

    [ Parent ]
    It's cool (none / 0) (#136)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:03:40 AM EST
    see the TUCC does some really cool stuff. That's the first rhetorical response of other orgs that don't bear mentioning.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, like the RCC> (none / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    black liberation theology, not black liberation (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:03:11 AM EST
    but nice try.

    [ Parent ]
    What Is The Difference? (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    It is about ending racism through non violent means. Seems to me that energizing and rechanneling the day to day oppression into action is a good thing.

    The fact that one AA poster here is embarrassed to admit that he loves watermelon, suggests to me that BLT is on the right track.  

    [ Parent ]

    Um, there is a huge difference (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    Black liberation refers to the liberation of blacks.

    Black liberation theology is a doctrine that, among other things, preaches innate learning differences between blacks and whites, the bell curve, and that the government is trying to kill black people with HIV.

    Get it?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes That is What It Sounds Like To You (1.00 / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    But, from what I have read, BLT is a direct descendent of MLK's teachings. AA culture is different from white american culture, and that is a fact I have personally witnessed.  BLT encourages AA to be proud of that difference rather than feel ashamed.

    My very limited search of BLT shows me that the predominant critique comes from right wing and conservative sources because of its left slant (marxist).

    I do know that AA have been Americans longer than most whites, yet they remain, for the large part on the bottom of the social ladder. My thoughts are that liberation must come from within the black community and not from outside. So I do not believe that it is my position to pass judgement on BLT. But if Obama, whether or not you like him, is an example of how some AA's can become liberated and rise up in society, BLT seems to be working, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    It only sounds that way to me (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    because the practitioners of it say so in their writing. And so does TUCC's writings and Rev. Wright and Rev. Meeks. I didn't make it up. Nor did I say that there was nothing positive about it. It is what it is.

    But I was responding to your original post that twisted someone's words above who was critical of black liberation theory into being critical of black liberation. They are two very different things.

    [ Parent ]

    I have no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    you've read all those writings first hand and in context and thought about them (for 30 secs), in historical context.

    Because you're not the type of person to perpetuate a lowball, now obsolete, smear campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    That was for (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM EST
    Dr Feelgood.

    [ Parent ]
    No Twist (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    The end results are the same, BLT is one approach to black liberation. And do you really think that you are in a position to judge what is best strategy for black liberation?

    [ Parent ]
    You're doing it again! (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    Twisting words. I never judged strategies for black liberation! I distinguished between the concept of black liberation and black liberation theology. You really do have a penchant for this.

    [ Parent ]
    Absurd (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:33:58 PM EST
    Just because you refuse to acknowledge that BLT a subset of Black Lib, or means for AA's to achieve liberation, doesn't make it so.

    Besides I do not think your approval of how AA's accomplish liberation is needed wanted or relevant.

    [ Parent ]

    Incoherent drivel (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    And you continue to put words in my mouth that I neither spoke nor implied.

    I should have known better. Why don't we just cut to the chase where you start your typical name-calling? I'm waiting.... 'hillary shill', 'hillary cultist', got any new ones for me?

    [ Parent ]

    OK (1.00 / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    Sorry the
    I'm waiting.... 'hillary shill', 'hillary cultist', got any new ones for me?

    Nothing comes to mind.

    BTW-I think either characterization is no longer relevant.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't think (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    that they were relevant in the first place.

    [ Parent ]
    But Astroturfing (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    And Obama shills and cultist were relevant? I do not think you can have it both ways. In case you have not noticed, in the last six months there have been commenters here whose sole purpose has been to promote their candidate, relentlessly. Were they paid, I don't know, but they were indistinguishable from paid shills.

    [ Parent ]
    Did I say that? (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    Or did you simply assume that I was okay with pejoratives re: Obama supporters?

    [ Parent ]
    You Explained What Astroturfing Was (none / 0) (#182)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    Because I had never heard of them. And yes I did, without basis, assume that you were OK with Obama pejoratives. A quick look at your comments, suggests that you are not part of the handful that use pejoratives for either candidate. Sorry to assume that you were, my bad.

    [ Parent ]
    FYI (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    the only person I ever referred to as a "shill" was Geekesque...and that was after he told me point blank, during one conversation over at dKos, that he was a shill.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    Yes he was a self proclaimed shill. Others here were much worse, imo, as they were far less interesting commenters, and unwilling to admit that they were in fact shilling.

    [ Parent ]
    They aren't worse... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Many are bland in comparison...some are as extreme...most are just there.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    As ridiculous as geekeske got, at least he was a self professed shill. I find it worse to read garbage from those who were true believers spouting empty talking points engaged in full suspension of disbelief, irrespective of who they were supporting.

    [ Parent ]
    blair pandered to british evangelicals (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    and even framed socialism as "christian  socialism". So i'm not surprised Tony Obama would do the same thing.

    [ Parent ]
    It is Generational (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:33:30 AM EST
    There is a new generation of evangelicals whose agenda includes fighting poverty and protecting the earth from global climate change. It is this group that Obama is appealing to.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:25:09 PM EST
    know but there are certainly more people on that list than I expected. Heck, we even have reps who are publicly stating they won't support Obama.

    That whole thing was today, right? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:11:17 PM EST
    Anyone hear it, or know how it's being reported?

    [ Parent ]
    Only in my wildest dreams (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    Preview is your friend. I don't use it enough myself.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:56:55 PM EST
    Preview is indeed my friend but even the preview doesn't always keep me from reading what I thought I wrote. Why is it the brain sees what it wants to see rather than the missing or misspelled words?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    And more OT:

    Tallahassee Florida had a huge drug bust in 6 homes in a very good section of town.  Thousands of MJ plants were confiscated to the tune of over 4 million dollars.  Tallahassee Democrat is the only newspaper in town and was covering the story.  Of course, there is a blog online.  Someone posted that he wished the TPD would bust the crack house on his street. He provided the name of the occupant and the dealer's name.  Seems it is a big operation.

    Suddenly the guy realized that he may have put himself in jeopardy. People posted furiously and he could not remove the post.  Poor guy I felt for him, but once posted you no longer own it and no way to correct.    

    and he posted the precise address (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    of the crack house.

    [ Parent ]
    good god (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    Sometimes it really is just survival of the fittest, you know?  Is this guy up for a Darwin Award this year?

    [ Parent ]
    It shows a pattern (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    and when Obama's people dismisses them as "nobodies", it reinforces the elitist label.

    Damn don't Obama's people get it at ALL?

    WHEN Obama loses (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:49:07 PM EST
    it's OBAMA's fault.

    End of story.  Finito!

    txpolitico67! bingo! that's right. (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    if obama loses, he is the one who did it. the buck stops with the candidate. it isn't like he doesn't have numberous advtanges like with the media. kerry picked strum, so the responsibility belongs with kerry for his loss and others also.

    [ Parent ]
    It's Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    modus operandi.

    The whole primary campaign model was based on victimhood.  Hence, the supporters cannot assign blame to Obama for his losses;  it was external forces:  The Clintons, ABC News, Fox News, chain emails, racism...on and on and freaking on.

    So BUCK up BHO people.  His campaign.  His job is to win or lose.  And its up to supporters to make it happen or not.  But in the end, it is up to Obama.  No more excuses and no more blaming.

    Suck! It! Up!

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed, But... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:45:33 PM EST
    I agree entirely that it's Obama's to win or lose. He gets the glory or he gets the blame.

    But your description of victimhood sounds exactly like the Clinton campaign to me. The never ending mantra is that she lost because of Obama playing dirty or the sexism of the media or other external forces. There is never an acknowledgment that the campaign had no strategy after Super Tuesday or that Mark Penn's messaging based on running as a pseudo-incumbent was a loser during a change election. Or that Bill Clinton was more of a liability than an asset on the stump. There is always someone to blame OUTSIDE of the campaign for its failure to secure the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    it was far more (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    prevalent by Obama.  Hell even he acknowledge it in his run-up to Kentucky.

    Anything and everything was NOT his own doing. And the comparison to Clinton is a joke.  The media, the sexism was BLARING.

    [ Parent ]

    A small suggestion. Stop using the (none / 0) (#131)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:48:29 PM EST
    phrase "change election".
    I have never heard it before this year, and I have no idea what it means. I believe it is simply an empty buzzword. If you remove the reference to "change election", your post is just as convincing.


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the Suggestion (none / 0) (#143)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:27:30 AM EST
    But I assure you it's not new this year. To me, it's an election that represents a political realignment. In 1980, Republicans took both the White House and the Senate and the political center shifted to the right. In 1994, Republicans took both houses of Congress from the Democrats and things shifted even further to the right. In 2006, Democrats took back both Houses of Congress and conservatism was unraveling as a political force. I think it is unprecedented to have two change elections in a row. But due to the deep unpopularity of Bush and the Republican brand, 2008 is sizing up to be another such election with the possibility of a Democrat in the White House and widening Democratic majorities in both Houses. This election could mark the end of the conservative era that was ushered in by Reagan in 1980.

    [ Parent ]
    You Might Be Right (none / 0) (#154)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:59:45 AM EST
    Bill Clinton may have been a real asset when he was quietly working small towns in rural areas. But on several occasions he threw the campaign off message with ill advised comments that dominated news coverage. Hillary Clinton was a much stronger candidate when she was dominating the media.

    [ Parent ]
    Except that one cannot assign blame (none / 0) (#90)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
    to a nobody, which is what Obama will be if he loses.

    [ Parent ]
    omg, that is just too funny! (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    Once the 527s get done, the voter will be so disgusted Obama will win in a landslide.

    rekwino8, do you actually believe this nonsense, or have you just been so brainwashed, the obvious stupidity of it just goes right over your head?

    no, don't bother answering, it was more a rhetorical question, you clearly haven't a clue. but hey you keep believing that. i do hope you have an antidote readily at hand, come nov. 4th.

    And What If S/He's Right? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    Will you mourn or rejoice?

    [ Parent ]
    To the point (none / 0) (#172)
    by Rekwin08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    You are the truly clueless one. As I said, 2004 is history. The economy is in the dumpster, gas prices thru the roof, and we're spending money like water in an unpopular war. There is such a striking difference between the two candidates with McCain more clueless than you. The Rethugs have to get the religious right vote to win and their candidate is an adulterer who dumped his wife for a younger women (who then financed his entire political career)and who has waffled on abortion (actually he has waffled on every issue that matters).  

    [ Parent ]
    McCain's chances lay in the middle (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    I believe Obama will be reason enough for the conservatives to vote for McCain.  The 527's will ensure that.  Shoot my mega-R father is already making all his ridiculous pronouncements about having to move abroad and put all his money in gold if Obama gets elected.  He's even lamenting the demise of Hillary Clinton, eulogizing her as at least someone who likes America and could be trusted to find her own ass with a map and a flashlight especially if you baited it with a nickel.

    McCain doesn't need to move rightward.  Sure he can't run too far to the middle, but he needs to be just centrist enough to embrace all the people in the middle who are going to be riding the wave of Obama revulsion right into his arms.  It's already happening in a small way, and we haven't even got to the GE negative campaigning yet.  That's just the primary fallout.  He just needs to be less scary than Obama.  Which of course is madness, because in this cycle it is unbelievable that any Democrat could be scarier than the Republican.  But we did it.  We picked the one candidate who had the potential to be that scary.

    i haven't read up as much as i would (none / 0) (#118)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST
    have liked on the proposed town hall meetings between mccain and obama. can anyone with some knowledge comment on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Still Happy with Clinton or Obama (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST
    I voted for Clinton but only after much internal debate. I'll be voting for Obama in November. Unlike the rabid supporters of each candidate, I rarely saw much daylight between their platforms. Both brought strengths and weaknesses to the table, but both with more strengths than any of the other candidates.

    My five stages of Elizabeth Kubler Ross dealing with it's "Clinton or no one" flashed past about eight weeks ago when I realized Florida wasn't getting a new vote. It was a 48 hour could I vote for McCain moment ...then slapped myself and came to my senses. By never being a hardcore Hillary voter my denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance cycle moved much quicker than others.

    I'm not voting for any third party candidate, I'm not voting for McCain. I'm a Democrat.

    That's a reasonable position, but (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:29:20 PM EST
    I also respect those people who will vote against Obama because of the way he was installed as nominee against the will of the people, and with the DNC violating its own rules to help Obama steal votes.
    Obama's selection violated core principles of Democracy---and probably quite needlessly, at least   looking at the actions of the RBC.

    [ Parent ]
    heh, that's a list of nobodies (4.25 / 4) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:42:42 PM EST
    and has beens. There's no one on that list that matters in a state that will matter.

    Yeah- pretty loose definition of prominent there (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    Though you know what they say: as goes a city clerk in Mississippi, so goes..well, I forget how the rest of it goes.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has a few problems... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cosbo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    aside from the women holding a serious grudge long enough to vote against (and they will), he also has an "inexperienced" problem. A good portion of democrats have no confidence in Obama's ability to lead and they're just not going to vote for him. That's without even mentioning race. Combine 'black' with 'inexperience' & 'women angry' and to me at least, we're looking at an electoral loss.

    Now combine 'black', 'inexperienced', 'angry women', 'radical black separatist', 'wright', 'rezko', 'ayers', 'muslim', elite' 'bitter'... and in my mind that translates to: Electoral DISASTER. But hey...

    [ Parent ]

    don't forget the above list of (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    nobodies. i suppose if you don't agree with the obama campaign then you are now a nobody.

    [ Parent ]
    Far worse 527 stuff to land on Obama! (none / 0) (#49)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:29:32 PM EST
    The Post-Chronicle (link) of Phoenix AZ, which you may have heard is the capital city of McCain's power base, has a great article--pretty well sourced, too.  D'ya s'pose Saint John may know about this stuff?  How could he miss it, & who may have planted it?

    In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

    In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist" which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

    If it's in the Post-Chronicle, it's in McCain's power alley.  True or not, this will be nationwide as soon as Sen. Obama is the Democratic candidate.  Peruse the article lightly, check out the links, & then imagine the appropriate TV ads.

    Then you can take that line of attack straight to the production studio.


    [ Parent ]

    McCarthyism is Old Hat (none / 0) (#110)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM EST
    That crap might have worked during the Cold War but what person outside the John Birch Society is going to believe it?

    [ Parent ]
    Every voter McCain needs to win. (none / 0) (#139)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    All of the folks who "believed" that Al Gore invented the internet after starring in Good Morning Vietnam. . . .

    All of those folks who believed that Dan Rather fabricated & lied about the Bu$h xliii AWOL from the Alabama National Guard. . . .

    All of those folks who believed that Sen. Kerry wrote up his own recommendations for the Purple Heart medals & that he falsely created the citation for his Silver Star. . . .

    All those ridiculous American voters who think that Barack Obama's supporters are a bunch of anti-American, unpatriotic, left-wing, socialist apologists. . . .

    etcetera, you know, the Bu$h xliii base of foolish voters who can't tell a commie from a Sunni--sort of similar to Sen. John S. McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    That Was All True (none / 0) (#147)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:36:24 AM EST
    But times have changed. Those folks have lost the trust of a lot of Americans. Those arguments won't work as they did before because people don't like what has happened in Iraq, with jobs and with gas prices.

    [ Parent ]
    I've lived in AZ for 30 years... (none / 0) (#162)
    by K Lynne on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    And I've never heard of the Post-Chronicle.  No idea what it is, and which way it leans.  Is it something like the National Enquirer???  Either that or it has a small circulation somewhere on the other side of town.

    When it hits the Arizona Republic, then it has hit mainstream news in AZ.

    [ Parent ]

    It's up to us (none / 0) (#7)
    by StevenT on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    Whether Obama wins or loses is entirely up to us - the Hillary people. I know that i won't cast my vote for McCain, but i still need more time to get through the Hillary grief. At least i'm through the state of voting for McCain =P

    However if Hillary is not in the VP then maybe i might have to go through all the stages of grief again.

    No... (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:17:21 PM EST
    It's up to Obama.

    Votes...even Democratic votes...are earned. They shouldn't just be assumed to be there regardless of how much pandering he does to try and bring in folks like the evangelicals.

    Ultimately, he earns or fails to earn those votes.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't say it is up to us (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    unless and until Obama and his supporters are as willing to share the credit with us if he wins as they are willing to blame us if he loses.  I am not taking responsibility for his candidacy.

    [ Parent ]
    share the credit? (none / 0) (#22)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    share the blame?

    Here is a simple formula.

    Vote for him, and either talk him up or at least say nothing, and you can share in all the credit.

    vote for McCain, and/or keep on trash-talking Obama, and yeah, you earn blame.

    Not so complicated.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the blame (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:51:41 PM EST
    if he loses no matter what I do.  Somehow his failure to win me over is a character flaw on my part.

    Blaming the voters - great tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares what "THEY" say? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:56:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what do you mean (none / 0) (#30)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    "no matter what you do?

    Why would you get any blame if you were a supporter?

    [ Parent ]

    I mean that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    even if I personally vote for Obama, as I intend to do as my 2nd choice Dem nominee, the stage has been set to blame Hillary, and by extension her supporters, if Obama loses.

    I could be paranoid (correction: I AM paranoid) but that is the way I see the commentary of the last couple of months.  Maybe it will die down as we get further into the GE..

    [ Parent ]

    yeah,,,dont be paranoid (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    Look, there has been a lot of anger at Hillary from Obama people because of the perception that she stayed in the race for at least 2 months after it was obvious to all that she could not win - and thus she was seen to be gratuitously harming him, putting her ego ahead of the party, just generally being a narcissist rather than a team player.

    I realize that Hillary supporters dont accept that she effectivly lost it back in April, but lots of other people think thats true. So there are bruised feelings.

    If Hillary does as she says, spends the next 5 months doing her part to help Obama be elected, then there really wont be any cause for anyone to blame her if he loses.

    Of course there are lots of people 'round here who are so invested in beleiveing that Obama is evil, and his supporters insane, that I suspect to get lots of angry pushback,,,but this is how I see it.

    [ Parent ]

    We respect your right to sre it that way (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    now, we just want you to respect that fact we don't.

    There are too many things happening this primary season that have not happened before, and it simply has raised some serious concerns.

    Many, if not most, of Clinton supporters were supporting the best candidate in the race. Not because she is a woman, and not because she's Hillary Clinton. It is not personal with us. She was the best candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    look, I would be more than happy (none / 0) (#52)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    to extend to you all manner of respect as a sincere Democrat doing what you feel is best for your party and your country.

    But it would be nice to know that you might consider doing that to Obama supporters as well.

    To wit: you really need to come to grips with the fact that this statement: "She was the best candidate" is your OPINION. It is NOT objective fact. It is your opinion. And yes, there are equally intellegent, equally sincere, equally liberal and progressive people who have and had a different opinion.

    If you can accept that, then so can we and all can be well on the left.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    Look, I tried to be fair with you and your cocky manner of addressing people.

    If you can't understand that all of the comments being made here are the opinion of the person writing them, I can't help you. We are not expected to include the phase "in my opinion" every single time we say something.

    So, relax and join the conversation without that abusive attitude.


    [ Parent ]

    That's far from all of what you are asking. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    You insist that the Clinton supporters agr